Bannister v. Omaha Police Dept et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - This matter is dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to prosecute it diligently and failed to comply with the court's orders. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. Ordered by Judge Laurie Smith Camp. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(KBJ)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA HOWARD BANNISTER, Plaintiff, v. LNU, Police Chief, and OMAHA POLICE OFC'S, Unknown, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 8:09CV125

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on its own motion. On August 10, 2009, the court permitted Plaintiff's claims to proceed against Defendants Lnu and Unknown Officers. (Filing No. 11.) Plaintiff had 120 days, or until December 1, 2009, to complete service of process. (Id. ) Plaintiff failed to complete service of process by this date. (See Docket Sheet.) On December 16, 2009, the court granted Plaintiff until January 5, 2010, to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failing to complete service of process. (Filing No. 12.) In doing so, the court warned Plaintiff that if he failed to respond and show good cause, this matter would be dismissed without prejudice and without further notice. (Id.) It is now January 11, 2010, and Plaintiff has failed to respond. (See Docket Sheet.) IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. This matter is dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to prosecute it diligently and failed to comply with the court's orders; and

2.

A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order.

DATED this 14th day of January, 2010.
B Y THE COURT:

s /L a u rie Smith Camp U n ite d States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court. 2